Morgan v State of Queensland & Ors [2005] NSWSC 539

Morgan v State of Queensland & Ors [2005] NSWSC 539

The second cross claim as against Cuylenburg was dismissed because Morgan had not made the written election required by s 45 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), so s 44 operated to deny the existence of a cause of action against him for the relevant injury and the Willis negligence claim was in substance an untenable contribution claim. The bailment claim was hopeless because it sought to extend bailment to personal injury damages in circumstances where the bailment was not for value and the vehicle was not reasonably fit for use. The contractual licence claim was hopeless because the alleged consideration of public benefit was not sufficiently definite. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion by the Second Cross Defendant to Strike Out or Dismiss the Second Cross Claim as Against Him / Supreme Court of New South Wales Common Law Division Judgment on Motion
Outcome
Second cross claim dismissed as against the second cross defendant; second cross claimants ordered to pay the second cross defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Proceedings' 'safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) Ss 44 and 45' 'election by Employee to Sue for Damages' 'cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity' 'bailment' 'negligence' 'contractual Licence']
['civil Procedure' 'tort Law' 'workers Compensation' 'contribution and Indemnity' 'contract Law'] ['strike Out Proceedings' 'safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) Ss 44 and 45' 'election by Employee to Sue for Damages' 'cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity' 'bailment' 'negligence' 'contractual Licence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion by the Second Cross Defendant to Strike Out or Dismiss the Second Cross Claim as Against Him / Supreme Court of New South Wales Common Law Division Judgment on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second cross claimants could maintain causes of action against the second cross defendant where the plaintiff had not made a written election under s 45 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).' "Whether s 44(1) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) should be construed as requiring that the Commonwealth employee's liability arise in the course of his or her employment." "Whether the pleaded bailment claim could support recovery for the plaintiff's personal injuries or an indemnity or contribution for liability to the plaintiff." 'Whether the negligence claim was in substance a claim for contribution caught by ss 44 and 45 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).' 'Whether the pleaded contractual licence based on public benefit was sufficiently definite to be enforceable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second cross claim as against Cuylenburg was dismissed because Morgan had not made the written election required by s 45 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), so s 44 operated to deny the existence of a cause of action against him for the relevant injury and the Willis negligence claim was in substance an untenable contribution claim. The bailment claim was hopeless because it sought to extend bailment to personal injury damages in circumstances where the bailment was not for value and the vehicle was not reasonably fit for use. The contractual licence claim was hopeless because the alleged consideration of public benefit was not sufficiently definite. The...

Court Disposition

Second cross claim dismissed as against the second cross defendant; second cross claimants ordered to pay the second cross defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The second cross claim so far as it pleads causes of action against the second cross defendant is dismissed.' "The second cross claimants (Willis) are to pay the second cross defendant's (Cuylenburg's) costs as agreed or assessed."]